State v. Crenshaw
| Decision Date | 18 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 5791,5792,s. 5791 |
| Citation | 597 P.2d 13,61 Haw. 68 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Linda H. CRENSHAW, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jo Ellen STEINLAUF, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The intentional exposure of one's private parts to public view is a lewd act within the meaning of the open lewdness statute.
2. As female breasts are not private parts or genitalia, the exposure thereof, without more, is not a lewd act within the meaning of the open lewdness statute.
James T. Countiss, Deputy Public Defendant, Honolulu, for defendants-appellants.
Roy Chang, Deputy Pros. Atty., Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before RICHARDSON, C. J., and OGATA and MENOR, JJ. *
The appellants were convicted under the provisions of HRS § 712-1217 which provides:
"A person commits the offense of open lewdness if in a public place he does any lewd act which is likely to be observed by others who would be affronted or alarmed."
Both appellants were arrested while sunbathing on Diamond Head Beach. They were then wearing only bikini bottoms. There is, however, nothing in the record nor in the circumstances to indicate that they were engaged in any form of exhibitionism at the time. That particular section of the beach was relatively secluded, and the scantiest of beach attire appears to be the norm rather than the exception in such areas.
The issue is whether their conduct constituted a "lewd act" within the meaning of the statute. In State v. Bull et al, Hawaii, 597 P.2d 10, decided this day, we held that the exposure of one's private parts to public view constituted a "lewd act" within the meaning of the statute. Female breasts, however, are not genitalia or "private parts," State v. Jones, 7 N.C.App. 166, 171 S.E.2d 468 (1970), and therefore the exposure of the female breast, under the circumstances of this case, cannot be said to be a "lewd act" within the proscription of HRS § 712-1217. Whether such exposure per se ought to be proscribed must necessarily be addressed to the wisdom of the legislature. Such conduct might have constituted the offense of indecent exposure as defined by the former common nuisance statute (then HRS § 727-1); however, the statute has been repealed and replaced by other Hawaii Penal Code provisions. State v. Bull, supra.
Reversed.
* Justices Kobayashi and Kidwell, who heard oral argument in this case, retired from the court on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Santorelli
...10, 11, 564 N.E.2d 505, citing State v. Jones, 7 N.C.App. 166, 171 S.E.2d 468; State v. Moore, 194 Or. 232, 241 P.2d 455; State v. Crenshaw, 61 Haw. 68, 597 P.2d 13; see also, Duvallon v. State, 404 So.2d 196 [Fla.], and 22 States specifically confine their statutory public exposure prohibi......
-
Duvallon v. District of Columbia
...that private parts means genitals, those portions of the human anatomy used in the reproductory process. Accord State v. Crenshaw, 61 Hawaii 68, 69, 597 P.2d 13, 14 (1979); Martin v. State, 534 P.2d 685 (Okla.Crim.App. 1975); State v. Dennison, 72 Wash.2d 842, 435 P.2d 526 (1967); Pendell v......
-
State v. Santiago, 14436
...be affronted or alarmed.Open lewdness is a petty misdemeanor.3 Female breasts are not "private parts" or genitalia. State v. Crenshaw, 61 Haw. 68, 597 P.2d 13 (1979).4 HRS § 701-109 (1985) provides in part as follows:Method of prosecution when conduct establishes an element of more than one......
-
Hart v. Com., 1891-92-2
...law terms are not generally understood to include an individual's buttocks. See Duvallon, 515 A.2d at 728. See also State v. Crenshaw, 61 Haw. 68, 597 P.2d 13, 14 (1979) (female breasts are not private parts or Neither Code § 18.2-67.10(2), which defines "intimate parts" for purposes of cri......